LegallyIndia.com

Kian
Will legallyindia be able to publish a copy of this decision once it is available?

@1 - Yes, we will publish and analyse the judgement as soon as we can get our hands on it. Most expect it to be available tonight or tomorrow.

One hell of a retrograde, a** saving judgement. Get the foreign law firms to practice here and ask the lousy Indian ones to match pace.

Well, our law firms (supported by the courts) like prohibition of competition, because they are retarded!

Best friends no more. Thank good that at least this organ of the constitution is kept away from 'goras'.

If this judgment is true, it is time to wind up and close shops of ‘best friends’ in India. Lift the veil from these so called firms which second its associates to their foreign masters and share their systems and infrastructure and you will see that they are nothing more than foreign law firm practicing in India and operating through a loophole. The partners are Indians who under the garb of a ‘co-operation agreement’ permit this practice.

Debar the partners and the associates, I say.

#6 Patriot Indian, please do not get swayed in emotions. International firms don't really need to have a tie up with an Indian firm or have presence in India (though it would definitely enhance their reach to Indian corporates). If you look around and see, almost all the mid-sized to large deals would have an international law firm advising. Please also realise the Indian corporates are also happy to pay fat bills to these international firms because they feel that these firms value add.

Indian firms should irrespective open their eyes and adopt best practices! Fear of opening up of the sector should not be the catalyst for this.

This judge needs careful review. Prima facie it enlarges the scope of legal practice and may have wide ramifications. By way of the judgment, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has interpreted and/or declared the law as it stands today. The question of allowing foreign law firms is a separate issue that is still being debated. Therefore, any one who suggests that the judgement is retrograde is not correct. Probably, this judgment will catalyse the debate on the entry of foreign law firms and result in a decision (whether short-term or long term) on the same.

Extending the logic of this judgment to LPOs, it appears that the LPOs are also involved in the practice of law. The consequential question is whether LPOs promoted by foreign firms be able to escape the rigours of regulations under the Advocates Act? At first sight, this judgment appears interesting as also thought provoking. A critical analysis of the aforesaid judgment and views for an against would really be an exciting affair. Hope more and more audience send in their comments.

Wonder whether Mr. SNP Sinha will now, finally, have to make rules for law firms...:) as per the text of the decision I would say surely Bar Council will have to make rules for what is clearly practice of law...(sorry to my litigating friends thinking otherwise...)

This is a sad day for the legal profession in India and the future hopes and opportunities for India's young corporate lawyers.

It's plainly illogical to suggest that an Indian court has any jurisdiction over the professional practice of any other law, whether such advice is given in India or not. It is up to relevant foreign professional bodies to determine whether its law may be practiced from other jurisdictions and simply has nothing to do with the Indian courts.

The judgement also plainly flies in the face of of the outsourcing business. Are foreign companies who outsource their drafting to India technically practicing law? Arguably yes, if we follow the logic (or lack of) of this decision. It will be interesting to see what the judgement says about this, if anything.

Let's hope our new law minister metaphorically tears the judgement up by getting legislation through parliament liberalising the legal market, defeating the monopolists once and for all.

Mr Moily, Respected Sir! Please do the needful!

Jai ho!

Please correct the error in the article where is says "Delhi Supreme Court"!
There is just one SC for the Republic of India.

[Thanks, we meant to say SC in Delhi, have made the change. -Ed]

The judgment is already available in the high court website

All those who are supporting advent of foreign law firms in India are those who are from 'best friends' etc. Observer and Lord Bewilderforce, are you all from a best friend firm? Corporate lawyers who make a minuscule percentile of lawyers for selfish reasons wanting foreign firms to come down to India.

Like me i.e. litigators who are 'lawyers' and interpretors of 'LAW' today is a victory.

Liberation from goras and their 250 dollar an hour Indian servants I say!! Debar them I say!!

au contraire Patriotic Indian (or are you a 'family firm' member?) I am actually 'in house' and I have to use legal services. I am a 'consumer' and unfortunately, my choice is limited. As you well know, no 'gora' will ever be interested in pursuing litigation work in India. What you seem to be missing is that the maintenance of the monopoly of a handful of family law firms over India's corporate work is an immense bottleneck on the development of the economy and actually strangling higher growth rates. Imagine the whole European or North American continent with just 5 law firms big enough to do big ticket corporate work? The conclusions are obvious aren't they? Rather than liberating young Indian lawyers from foreigners, maintaining the monopoly strangles the economy and destroys future Indian talent who would otherwise work in Baker & McKenzie India, with all the professional development and support that would bring, together with a much better product for people that use legal services.

The racial comments in these posts are disgusting. LegallyIndia's decision to allow them to post is evidence of its own racism and bias. Subsitute your slur of choice for "gora" and see how these posts read. Does this site have a monitor? Has the Indian legal profession nothing but racial hatred to offer?

[Apologies if anyone has been offended, I was not aware it was such a contentious term. Please vote this comment up (green thumbs up icon below) if you want the word 'gora' censored from comments in future or down (red icon) if you don't mind.
Another thing to bear in mind is that not all foreign lawyers are white so 'gora' is not necessarily an accurate term if we are talking about foreign lawyers. -Kian]

I support continued use of the racially perjorative term "gora" on this site for several reason.

1. Allowing the racists to use such language underscores that the debate is not about genuine issues of professional standards. There are indeed regulatory issues to discuss - but the real issue is "us" versus "them. And India is clearly not ready for a racially integrated bar like racially diverse and developed countries such as the U.S., where Manmohan Singh's daughter is a practicing lawyer. The Indian bar already allows foreigners to practice - it simply doesn't allow non-ethnic Indians to practice. One could name several foreign citizens admitted to the Indian bar without comment, but not a single non-Indian face among them.

2. "Gora" is clearly considered a racially charged slur (check out the Racial Slur Database at http://www.rsdb.org/). The only people in India who use such language in the normal course of conversation are North Indians, specifically, Punjabis and others in Delhi. Others in the Hindi belt, where men keep female illiteracy rates at about 50%, also use such language in regular conversation. If the site editor is insufficiently knowledgable about Indian vernacular usage and its implications, it calls into question the editorial insights in other stories. No respsonible news outlet would routinely allow a clearly racially charged, editorially irrelevant perjorative in its reportage. I recall that "ferengi" was also routinely used for some time too. Allowing use of a racial slur marks the site as racially partisan. I'd love to post that on "Above the Law."

3. The use of "Gora" is reflective of the regional and ethnic tensions that are further dividing India today. The attacks against North Indians in Mumbai, the complaints of Telegana activists against "outsiders" taking jobs in southern AP are further examples of such biases. The Indian bar is both comfortable and proud that its lawyers go abroad and do well. But heaven forbid that the door swing both ways.

So, please, I vote that those who think in racist terms be allowed to express themselves fully. "Gora" should stay.

Re: Post 15 - The purely racial animus behind the prohibition against foreign law firms is indeed one of the most reprehensible aspects of this regulation. Of course I could mention other issues of objection. But Indians are otherwise largely comfortable with the idea that domestic regulations are there to benefit a tiny minority at the expense of the common man - consider the long support for the License Raj, and the prohibition against foreign retailers.

And you likely know, as the site monitor does not, that "firang" is never a complimentary term. And a native speaker would almost never use it to refer to an ehtnically Indian foreign citizen. It's a half-step back from "gora," but hardly a polite term.

Manmohan Singh's daughter is a member of the New York bar and has been a vigorous and successful foe to two U.S. presidents. I don't recall any U.S. lawyers objecting to her presence or referring to her race in commentary on the merits of her work.

Even the Brits allowed Gandhi-ji and Ambedkar-ji to practice at their bar. Even the South African bar allowed non-whites to practice. There are plenty of foreign citizens of Indian origin enrolled at the Indian bar. But the Indian bar is a racially closed club.

Yes, Kian, you are right.......so let's say "firangi" instead of "gora" ;-) But hey, Mr. Chicagowalla, take it easy, sir. Everything else written in insulting terms but in "parliamentary" language is ok? So, the term "gora" is all you object to? Gimme a break!

And as for patriotic Indian, don't crack me up. Why should this be a victory for you true (and self-proclaimed) interpreters of the law? Have you been having sleepless nights worrying about "goras" flooding the Indian courts and eating into your book of business.....ooops.....I mean.....your noble service to society and pursuit of sainthood? Don't worry, that is not too likely to happen even if there were no legal bar on it :-)

So, does anyone have any idea if the foreign firms in question plan to appeal? Kian, would you have any info on this?

[I think foreign firms are still trying to figure out their options but we are following up of course and will report when we find out. -Kian].

I didnt know there was a 'Delhi's Supreme Court'.. I thought there was 'the Supreme Court of India' situated in Delhi with Delhi having its own High Court.

Not trying to be nitpicky dear editor, but just a gentle reminder to rectify the same to read as the Supreme Court. Kind regards..

It seems, the Bombay High Court has given the judgement as per the present statutes available in the country. Foreign Law firms are not allowed to prctice in India unless the government of India liberalizes the legal industry by making an amendment to the present legislations.

copy of the judgement can be found in the below link
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2009/OSWP8152695.pdf

@Rustom Chicagowalla

"The only people in India who use such language in the normal course of conversation are North Indians, specifically, Punjabis and others in Delhi"


And you had a problem with 'racial comments'? I bet you also like Hagen Dazs ice cream, don't you? You sir, are an A grade jackass.


Also, Kian, its judgment and not judgement. You seriously need to get atleast one post right. Not a single post on this site is free of errors.

Hey Drew Barrymore,

What's the beef with Kian? He is only posting verbatim what people are blogging.

My two cents.

[Thanks Anonymous. We did use both judgment and judgement in the article accidentally. Technically both are correct and it is a matter of style which one to use. However, we should have been consistent, whatever spelling we adopt. Will fix shortly. -Kian]

Copy of the judgement available here.
http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/judgements/2009/OSWP8152695.pdf

@Drew Peacock.

I'm sure Kian appreciates your correction. FYI, it's Haagen-Dazs.

And there is nothing racial in my objective observation that "gora" is a Hindi word and most often deployed in common parlance in conversations in North India.

Unlike race, which is immutable, language is a choice, and we can discuss the implications of that choice. And I doubt you'd argue that there are many people walking around the Madras High Court complaining about "goras." One, they're typically too polite to deploy such slurs, and secondly, they are highly unlikely to use a Hindi word if they did. But I suppose you know best in this regard. But you seem unwilling to address the substantive point - that "gora" is a racist slur, and that this is being used by posters such as yourself to characterize the foreign lawyer debate in racial terms.

http://indiacorplaw.blogspot.c...reign.html

http://legaldevelopments.blogspot.com/2009/12/practice-of-law-under-advocates-act.html

India Corp Law has this analysis... The author says that the reasoning will be examned in further post later.

@Rustomji,

Yes, pointing out the misspelling of Haagen Dazs as 'Hagen Dazs' is a devastating rebuttal to the certifiable proposition that you're racist. And thanks for humouring us with your attempts at reasoning. Didn't work though. To paraphrase Kanye West, I'm real happy for you Rustomji and Im'ma letchu finish, but the KKK were actually the biggest racists of all time. Of ALL TIME!

The comments here have been intelligent so far. Please keep it that way. You can do so by not posting here anymore. (supra Post 21, 2nd para, last sentence.)

@22

To begin with, read this article first.